Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rapids v Bears
#21
(08-07-2017, 05:04 PM)DaveC Wrote:
(07-07-2017, 11:08 PM)Terry Wrote: I found more to write about on the periphery of the game:
http://deepextracover.com/2017/07/bell-a...worcester/
To be fair to OH-D, he came back well with three wickets in the final over,
I'm  not sure what Josh Poysden and Ateeq Javid have to do to get a game.  I hope they don't have to move counties to play regularly.
Good to see Olly Stone bowling quickly.  And the bowling attack being shared by two Olivers is probably a first.


Good report Terry. Although I do worry that OHD will be taken to the cleaners by Hales, Lumb, Wessels, Patel et al this evening.

You do of course realise I'm sure that Dave "Bradders" Bradley's announcements are spoofs and are all part and parcel of the entertainment at New Rd one-day games now?

At the RLC50 SF v Surrey he ploughed a similar furrow with a vehicle owner whose Range Rover had been parked minus it's handbrake. This played out over the course of the day and had everyone in stitches. So much better than the shrieking hysterics from the PA man at Edgbaston that we'll have to endure over the next month.

And WB - I for one would be happy to see the "relationship" between Birmingham City Council and Warwickshire well and truly shattered. The city had no business lending us that kind of money. If we could not have raised that kind of money in the proper commercial manner then the redevelopment should have been scaled back.

It's that kind of mismanagement of public finances that see us BCC council taxpayers yet again enjoying our rubbish piling high in the streets whilst the binmen walk out every day for a couple of hours.

BCC would p1$$ the money up the wall on something else if it hadnt helped WCCC.... probably a kabadi stadium, trojan schools or bin mens salaries at £40k a year plus... perhaps the councils executive officers "winterval" party?

Also... a decade or more ago ... the ECB and ICC were mandating all kinds of requirements to host international matches.... the council and the club wanted to be at that party.

Personally I do tend to agree with you... but we are where we are.... I would bring in a law that says that only people who pay the full council tax should be able to vote in council elections.... maximum two votes per house....

Anyway .... a target under 160 this evening..... hmmm? Nicely set up.
Reply
#22
Hope Luke Fletcher is ok. That looked horrific watching it live.
I hope the fact he was able to walk off is a good sign.
Reply
#23
Yes agree with that
Keep up-to-date with County Cricket at http://deepextracover.com/
Reply
#24
Yes you just don't know with traumatic head injuries. Whether they did the right think just walking him off I'm not sure.

Reply
#25
Indeed.... horrific from where I am... the game is going to restart I believe.... this is going to be difficult.
Reply
#26
That they've decided to restart must be a positive sign?
Reply
#27
Yes I think until he has had the results of a scan you cant tell with these things. There could be internal bleeding which I why I was shocked they walked him back. Surely the safest thing would be to call the paramedics. Maybe I'm wrong but you cant take chances with things like that

Reply
#28
Just seen the news from the Notts match as I'm out in France trying to keep tabs. Awful news but at least a
He seemed alright from the photo in the Ambulance.

We need to see it home from here for a great start to the competition
Paul fondled my onion bags.
Reply
#29
Crumbs that was close! Just about!!
Paul fondled my onion bags.
Reply
#30
Nearly snatched a tie from the jaws of victory.
Reply
#31
Two out of two. Great atmosphere. Really enjoyable evening (apart from Luke Fletcher getting hit obviously).
Reply
#32
A strange game in that we should have tied it up ages before we did and I am glad the umpires took a look again at the last ball run out attempt because it seemed as if Notts had so much time to break the stumps. Saw the pictures of Fletcher in the ambulance and I am really surprised that his head didn't look a bloody mess as the speed that ball was travelling at would have felled a rhino.
Reply
#33
Meant to add in previous post, our Patel was wonderful.
Reply
#34
Having seen the reply of Lumb's appeal for a run out on the last ball of the game.

It is obvious that he had dropped the ball and knowingly appealed when he was aware he did not have the ball in his hands and therefore did not legally break the wicket, this paragraph from the "Spirit of Cricket" section of the laws came to mind

5. It is against the Spirit of the Game:
-
• To dispute an umpire’s decision by word, action or gesture
• To direct abusive language towards an opponent or umpire
• To indulge in cheating or any sharp prac[i]tice, for instance [/i]

i) appeal knowing the batsman is not out

While Robert may be bad, Robert is not all Mugabe's.
There are GOOD Mugabe's
It is Warwickshire County Cricket Club!
Reply
#35
(08-07-2017, 11:47 PM)The Good Mugabe Wrote: Having seen the reply of Lumb's appeal for a run out on the last ball of the game.

It is obvious that he had dropped the ball and knowingly appealed when he was aware he did not have the ball in his hands and therefore did not legally break the wicket, this paragraph from the "Spirit of Cricket" section of the laws came to mind

5. It is against the Spirit of the Game:
-
• To dispute an umpire’s decision by word, action or gesture
• To direct abusive language towards an opponent or umpire
• To indulge in cheating or any sharp prac[i]tice, for instance [/i]

i) appeal knowing the batsman is not out


BUT - he could have dropped the ball onto the stumps, thereby breaking the wicket with the ball before with his hands. Fortunately for us, his hands just broke the wicket before the ball did (as the ball did hit the stumps as well). Therefore I don't think there was anything wrong at all with appealing for it, even if they thought it probably wasn't out.
Proud to be a Bear
Reply
#36
Once the wicket is broken the laws specify the actions needed for a batsman to be dismissed, so the fact the dropped ball hit the stumps after they had been broken by Lumb's hands is actually irrelevant, and would not have lead to Clarkes dismissal.

The relevant law is Law 38

1. Out Run out

(a) Either batsman is out Run out, except as in 2 below, if, at any time while the ball is in play,
(i) he is out of his ground
    and (ii) his wicket is fairly put down by the action of a fielder.
(b) (a) above shall apply even though No ball has been called, except in the circumstances of 2(b)(ii) below, and whether or not a run is being attempted.
2. Batsman not Run out     
Notwithstanding 1 above,
(a) A batsman is not out Run out if    
(i) he has been within his ground and has subsequently left it to avoid injury, when the wicket is put down.
Note also the provisions of Law 29.1(b) (When out of his ground).   
(ii) the ball has not subsequently been touched by a fielder, after the bowler has entered his delivery stride, before the wicket is put down.    
(iii) the ball, having been played by the striker, or having come off his person, directly strikes a protective helmet worn by a fielder and, without any other contact with him or any contact with any other fielder, rebounds directly on to the wicket.  However, the ball remains in play and either batsman may be Run out in the circumstances of 1 above if a wicket is subsequently put down.
(b) The striker is not out Run out
    (i) if he is out Stumped.  See Laws 2.8(e)(ii) (Transgression of the Laws by a batsman who has a runner) and 39.1(b) (Out Stumped).
    (ii) either in the circumstances of Law 2.8(e)(i) (Transgression of the Laws by a batsman who has a runner) or, otherwise,        
if No ball has been called
and he is out of his ground not attempting a run
and the wicket is fairly put down by the wicket-keeper without the intervention of another fielder.
3. Which batsman is out
The batsman out in the circumstances of 1 above is the one whose ground is at the end where the wicket is put down.  See Laws 2.8 (Transgression of the Laws by a batsman who has a runner) and 29.2 (Which is a batsman’s ground).
4. Runs scored
If either batsman is dismissed Run out, the run in progress when the wicket is put down shall not be scored, but runs completed by the batsmen shall stand, together with any runs for penalties awarded to either side.  See Laws 18.6 (Runs awarded for penalties) and 18.9 (Runs scored when a batsman is dismissed).
If, however, a striker who has a runner is himself dismissed Run out, runs completed by the runner and the other batsman before the wicket is put down shall be disallowed, but any runs for penalties awarded to either side shall stand. The non-striker shall return to his original end.  See Law 2.8 (Transgression of the Laws by a batsman who has a runner).
5. Bowler does not get credit
The bowler does not get credit for the wicket.

© Marylebone Cricket Club 2013

Law 28 is also relevant

1. Wicket put down


(a) The wicket is put down if a bail is completely removed from the top of the stumps, or a stump is struck out of the ground,

(i) by the ball,

or (ii) by the striker’s bat if he is holding it or by any part of his bat that he is holding,

or (iii) notwithstanding the provisions of Law 6.8(a), by the striker’s bat in falling if he has let go of it, or by any part of his bat becoming detached,

or (iv) by the striker’s person or by any part of his clothing or equipment becoming detached from his person,


or (v) by a fielder with his hand or arm, providing that the ball is held in the hand or hands so used, or in the hand of the arm so used.

The wicket is also put down if a fielder strikes or pulls a stump out of the ground in the same manner.

(b) The disturbance of a bail, whether temporary or not, shall not constitute its complete removal from the top of the stumps, but if a bail in falling lodges between two of the stumps this shall be regarded as complete removal.

2. One bail off

If one bail is off, it shall be sufficient for the purpose of putting the wicket down to remove the remaining bail or to strike or pull any of the three stumps out of the ground, in any of the ways stated in 1 above.

3. Remaking wicket

If a wicket is broken or put down while the ball is in play, it shall not be remade by an umpire until the ball is dead. See Law 23 (Dead ball). Any fielder may, however, while the ball is in play,

(i) replace a bail or bails on top of the stumps.

(ii) put back one or more stumps into the ground where the wicket originally stood.
While Robert may be bad, Robert is not all Mugabe's.
There are GOOD Mugabe's
It is Warwickshire County Cricket Club!
Reply
#37
You've missed the point - the wicket could have been broken by the ball before his hands!! If the bails had come off before his hands hit the stumps it would've been out.
Proud to be a Bear
Reply
#38
That would be a different situation, the fact is that Lumb dropped the ball & broke the wicket with his hands.

Once the wicket is broken, a player can NOT be dismissed just by the ball hitting the stumps.

As shown above, the laws are very clear on this.
While Robert may be bad, Robert is not all Mugabe's.
There are GOOD Mugabe's
It is Warwickshire County Cricket Club!
Reply
#39
There's no question it was not out.

I think that EB was trying to point out that the ball did fall on to the stumps a millisecond after his hands disturbed the bails. If gravity had been turned up slightly, and the ball had beaten his hands it would have been a different outcome.
Reply
#40
Of course, if the ball broke the wicket, or Lumb had broken the wicket with ball in hand the batsman would have been out if he had not made his ground.

My issue is with Lumb deliberately appealing when he knew he didn't have the ball in his hand and therefore the batsman could not be out.
While Robert may be bad, Robert is not all Mugabe's.
There are GOOD Mugabe's
It is Warwickshire County Cricket Club!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)